Low back pain (LBP) is common in children and adolescents, and it is becoming a public health concern. In recent years there has been a considerable increase in research studies that examine the prevalence of LBP in this population, but studies exhibit great variability in the prevalence rates reported. The purpose of this research was to examine, by means of a meta-analytic investigation, the prevalence rates of LBP in children and adolescents.

Objectives: To identify factors associated with low back pain (LBP) in children and adolescents. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted (Prospero CRD42016038186). Observational studies analyzing LBP risk factors among participants aged between 9 and 16 were searched for in 13 electronic databases and 8 specialized journals until March 31, 2016, with no language restrictions. In addition, references in the identified studies were manually tracked. All identified studies that included ≥50 participants aged 9 to 16, were reviewed. Their methodological quality was assessed by 2 reviewers separately, using validated tools, which scored, from worst to best, 0 to 100 for cross-sectional and 0 to 12 for cohort studies. A sensitivity analysis only included studies that had adjusted for confounders, had ≥500 participants, and had a methodological score of ≥50%. Results: A total of 5142 citations were screened and 61 studies, including 137,877 participants from 5 continents, were reviewed. Their mean (range) methodological scores were 74.56 (50 to 100) for cross-sectional studies and 7.36 (5 to 9) for cohort studies. The studies had assessed 35 demographic, clinical, biological, family, psychological, ergonomic, and lifestyle risk factors. The mean (range) prevalence of LBP ranged between 15.25% (3.20 to 57.00) for point prevalence and 38.98% (11.60 to 85.56) for lifetime prevalence. Results on the association between LBP and risk factors were inconsistent. In the sensitivity analysis, “older age” and “participation in competitive sports” showed a consistent association with LBP. Discussion: Future studies should focus on muscle characteristics, the relationship between body and backpack weights, duration of carrying the backpack, characteristics of sport practice, and which are the factors associated with specifically chronic pain.

Low back pain (LBP) in adolescents is associated with LBP in later years. In recent years treatments have been administered to adolescents for LBP, but it is not known which physical therapy treatment is the most efficacious. By means of a meta-analysis, the current study investigated the effectiveness of the physical therapy treatments for LBP in children and adolescents.

Preventive interventions improve healthy behaviours and they also increase knowledge regarding back care in children and adolescents, but studies exhibit great variability in their contents, duration and number of sessions, and in the assessment methods. The purpose of this study was to review the empirical evidence regarding preventive physiotherapy interventions for back care in children and adolescents, and to ascertain the most efficacious treatments, in what way and under which circumstances.

Gait disturbances are common in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP). Robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) is becoming increasingly widespread, and hence it is important to examine its effectiveness. A network meta-analysis (NMA) of clinical trials comparing treatments with RAGT vs. other physical therapy treatments was carried out. This study was conducted according to the NMA version of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines and following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The outcome variables used were the D and E dimensions of the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), gait speed, resistance, and stride length. Among 120 records, 8 trials were included. This NMA did not find statistically significant results for any of the comparisons examined in any of the outcomes studied and the magnitude of the effect size estimates was low or very low. Our NMA results should be interpreted with caution due to the high clinical heterogeneity of the studies included.